The use of "sustainability" as a term has become popular and useful in recent times, to all sorts of people. Malcolm Hollick argues that environmentalists must debate the concept and develop clear definitions of it.

Sustainability is the name of the game; The latest "in" word; the way to be with it. Politicians and idustrialists liberally season their speeches with the term, the media use it with abandon, a quick scan of indexes reveals a library of publications on the subject, and every week some group has a conference on it. The term has entered the national consciousness, and is in danger of achieving the dubious status of "motherhood".

But what does sustainability mean? Many are willing to tell us to farm sustainably, or manage forests sustainably, or develop a sustainable economy, yet few stop to consider what it is they are really talking about. In consequence, it is hardly suprising that "sustainability' seems to mean all things to all people. The Treasurer, Paul Keating, speaks of "sustainable economic growth", while Hugh Morgan describes mining as "sustainable resource exploitation". Perhaps these two would find themselves in agreement, but their ideas are diametrically opposed to those of most consenationrvsts. If we are to succeed in promoting true sustainability and preventing the term being "hijacked" by traditional development interests, it is important that we debate the concept and develop clearer definitions of it as well as considering practical ways to implement it.

This article is a contribution to that debate which sets out some of the difficulties that I see in defining "sustainability' and a "sustainable society'. I have deliberately refrained from analysing documents such as the World, National and State Conservation Strategies and the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, and focussed instead on a few broad themes. I hope it will provoke lively discussion.

Sustainable for what?

What exactly is it that we want to sustain? Personally, I have no fears for the future of the earth as a self-sustaining system. The history of Gaia, as James Lovelock so ably demonstrates in his books, shows that she is well able to cope with catastrophe; indeed catastrophe is often the spur to evolutionary development. If humanity pushes the system too hard we may become extinct and take many other species with us, but I have no doubt that in time Gaia would shrug off the impact even of nuclear war. Thus sustainability is a non-issue if our concern is for life on earth in general rather than for homo sapiens or other particular species or ecosystems.

The very concept of a "sustainable society" rather than a"sustainable earth" is human-centred. Presumably what we mean by this is maintenance of conditions in which our human society and natural environment can continue for the foreseeable future to provide what we believe to be a desirable quality of life. The exact nature of that quality of life depends on our personal values and experiences. Essential to all are life-support processes that provide us with air, water, food and other resources essential to life, but what else is needed beyond subsistence is a matter of opinion.

Sustainable for how many and at what level?

If we accept that we are talking about a human-centred concept of sustainability, it becomes relevant to ask, sustainable for how many humans and at what quality of life? The earth might be able to sustain far more than its present population if we were content with a subsistence vegetarian diet, minmal shelter, clothing and. other material goods; and. if the population was distributed according to the capacity of the local environment to provide for our needs. However, I suspect that very few of us, even professed deep ecologists, would be willing to accept such a definition of a sustainable society.

At the other extreme, say the OECD level of material and energy resource use, it is clear that the earth could sustain far fewer than its present population. While conservationists advocate a reduction of resource demands because the capacity of the earth is being over-strained, it is not clear how many would continue to support the concept of a resource conserving society if it were possible to reduce population to a size which could be sustained at a high level of material affluence. Thus even within the conservation movement, there may be significant differences regarding the appropriate balance between population size and material affluence in a sustainable society.

Sustainable for how long?

Whether or not an activity or process is considered to be sustainable depends on the time scale used. Economists and businessmen discount the future in their analyses to the extent that a total catastrophe in 50 years time is unimportant. To them, anything that will last longer than 10 or 20 years is sustainable. By contrast, in astronomical terms human society is not sustainable because the sun will eventually burn out.

So what time scale do we mean when we talk about a sustainable society? It is clear that the world and national conservation strategies, and conservationists in general, mean more than one generation&emdash;hut how many? Our grandchildren? Our great grandchildren? Or should we adopt the great law of peace of the Mohawk Indians: for any proposed action, first consider its impact on the next seven generations?

Underlying this question is the important philosophical issue of whether people and events in the present or near future are more important than those in the more distant future. Does importance diminish with time into the future, as economists maintain, or should all future generations be given equal consideration? If all were to be considered equally, the "votes~ of untold generations to come would always outweigh those of our own, and hence we would be morally obliged to devote all our efforts to building for, or protecting future rather than meeting our present needs. This position is as untenable to most people as giving no thought for tomorrow.

As so often happens, we must seek a balance. Where the fulcrum lies depends on our views of the need, and capabilities of future generations, and of the resilience of the earth. We do not know what people of the future will value&emdash;apart from the basic necessities of life &emdash; and nor do we know what technologies they will have available to them to overcome their problems. Similarly, we have little idea of how far the biosphere can be pushed before it will cease to sustain human life, although the present signs or stress should be apparent to all.

Technological optimists, supported by most economists, argue that a short time horizon is appropriate because new technological fixes will become available to solve future problems, including the collapse of the biosphere (for example, the science fiction domed and sealed city; space colonies) Pessimists, including many conservationists, argue for a longer perspective because they lack confidence in both the resilience of the earth and human capabilities. However, I suspect that the time horizons of even the most dedicated conservationists seldom stretch beyond four or five generations&emdash;a drop in the bucket of human history, or a drop in the ocean of Gaia's evolution. Unfortunately, there is no informed, objective position from which to argue that one attitude is better than another because the future is unknown.

We face here one of the basic problems with the concept of sustainability. The actions identified as necessary to ensure transition to a sustainable society depend on the time horizon adopted, and the degree of our faith in science, technology and the resilience of the earth. Can we hope to persuade the community that we, as conservationists, have a more valid faith than others.

Sustainable over what area?

Not only is the nature of a sustainable society dependent on the time horizon, but it also depends on the geographical scale adopted. A sustainable society based on an isolated village has very different requirements to one based on a region or whole globe.

For local sustainability, we must have local self-sufficiency. This in turn implies a low level of technology and a need to conserve all local environmental resources. If, however, "development" came to our village and it was integrated into the regional economy, it would be possible to think in terms of specialisation (for example, growing a cash crop rather than a variety of foods) and conservation of local resources would not be so vital. For example, food or timber might be obtained from further away if local sources were destroyed for some reason.

From the regional perspective, it is again essential to maintain self-sufficiency, but this does not necessarily mean conserving every local resource. Thus, if water quality was degraded in one area so that it was no longer suitable for drinking, this might not reduce the sustainability of the whole region if the water could be used for some other purpose, such as industry, and potable water now used for industry was brought in from elsewhere.

Thus, while we can agrue that the global life-support systems on which we depend must be maintained (assuming we rejcct the science fiction scenario), it is far more difficult to decide what this means at the local or regional level. It is not necessarily vital, or even desirable, to conserve every natural resource, including environmental resources, at the local or regional level in order to ensure a sustainable society within a sustainable biosphere. The best we can do, perhaps, is to tread lightly everywhere, while recognising that some of our footprints inevitably will cause change and degradation.

Back...